The Instigator
mostlogical
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
paintballvet18
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Murder is Okay

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 678 times Debate No: 100322
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

mostlogical

Pro

I will argue that murder is okay i.e. acceptable

Murder definition: the premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Rules: Con must answer the following two questions in round 1 otherwise the debate will not continue and I win

1) Do you think the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few?
2) Do most people believe the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few?

Good luck Con, I look forward to having this debate
paintballvet18

Con

I accept the debate. In The Wrath of Khan (1982), Spock says, "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Captain Kirk answers, "Or the one."

I, as the Con, therefore must defend that Murder is not "okay".

To answer the Pro's two questions,

1. The lives of the many do outweigh the lives of the few on a general basis.
2. I can't answer for other people and neither can you, so this question has no weight in the debate.

Soldiers every day lay down their lives to protect their countries, therefore upholding the notion that the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few.

However, these two questions have literally nothing to do with the question at hand for the debate, "Is Murder Okay?".

Let's first define acceptable as something that is morally correct.

If murder can be justified to a moral standpoint, it therefore falls under the premise of Consequentialism, and is therefore no longer a "moral" act. Let me provide an example from http://philosophy.stackexchange.com...

The judge asks you whether you committed murder. You respond by saying, "yes". The judge further asks questions to find out why you committed the crime. He finds out what the true reasoning the murder was and thus, merely sends you to a rehabilitation center to prepare you to re-enter society.

This, being a consequentialist scenario, is therefore not acceptable in the debate. We must look at a juxtaposing scenario to see what must be examined in the debate today:

The judge asks you whether you committed murder. You respond by saying, "yes". The judge then immediately sentences you to 25 years in prison.

That's moral absolutionism, and is the scenario we examine for the debate.

-----

That being said, I now attack why murder is not "okay" (i.e. not morally acceptable).

Murder cannot be justified through logic, reason, emotion, or any other means. If it can be justified, it's not murder-- it's justifiable homicide, or manslaughter, or an act of combat, or self-defense, or capital punishment, or euthanasia, etc.

In general, societies consider "murder" to be "wrong" because it is depriving someone of the one thing that nearly every human being holds sacred - their life. Since in the United States, we have the unalienable right to life, murder is therefore also not legally acceptable, and therefore receives the maximum punishment.

Now, let's also point out that we will disregard abortions and assisted suicides in the debate. Although both can be considered both premeditated and killings, they don't count.

All being said, those are the reasons why murder is not "okay" nor morally acceptable.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
mostlogical

Pro

There are many ways someone can be murdered i.e. killed deliberately. Whenever the term "murder" is given a new name such "combat", "abortion" (human life starts at conception), "capital punishment", or "assisted suicide/doctor-assisted dying/ mercy killing/" etc it is because they are generally considered okay by a large population. "Ethnic cleansing" is another example, although it often refers to deportation, population transfer, the term "cleansing" can be used to replace the word murder. We can use "self defence" without having to kill someone yet this term is often used when someone dies as a result and the phrase 'kill or be killed' is said to suggest it was not deliberate, as they didn't plan to kill someone that day.

I won't be debating the above, as those forms of murder are given a new name, instead I shall be debating examples when only the term murder is used to describe the actions of someone.

All human life is valuable, which is why when put in a situation whereby you can kill someone to save more lives it is morally correct i.e. acceptable.

"85% of Americans approved of using the new atomic weapon on Japanese cities in 1945, this percentage has dropped to 56% in 2015 [1]" The number of Japanese who approve of being bombed will of course be much lower because people value their family and friends more highly than other people. But when you remove that thought, and those people who are killed and saved are random strangers you get a higher number of people who approve of killing to save more lives.

Con and myself believe that the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few.

The NHS organ donor register allows people to have their decision about donating organs after their death to be recorded. If you have not made a decision to donate organs in the event of your death then the law allows family members to make the decision for you [2]

"Approximately 250,000 additional life-years could be saved annually if consent for potential deceased donors could be increased to 100%." [3]

"One deceased donor can save up to eight lives through organ donation and can save and enhance more than 100 lives through the lifesaving and healing gift of tissue donation." [4]

There is a great deal of evidence to support murder, e.g. murdering one person will save more lives, and enhance many more lives. Even if a person did not sign the NHS organ register or discuss their views about organ donation and they were murdered family members can decide whether that person would have wanted to give their organs to other people and save lives. The vast majority of people will say "yes he/she would have wanted to do that".

"Donation consent rate increased to 62% but still too low. In 2015/16, 1,364 people became organ donors when they died and their donations resulted in 3,519 transplants taking place" [5]

The fact that most people want to save lives through dying, proven by the fact they signed the organ register, makes their death and the act of murdering them acceptable.

Since there are not enough deceased organ donors to help those on the organ waiting list, every murderer has been saving many more lives than they have killed and making many more better. Of course there are murderers who bury dead bodies and so their organs don't go to any use, but that is only because they are trying to get away with murder and being punished as "murder" is illegal. Therefore evil occurs when murder is made illegal, and if it were made legal then it would be totally okay in the legal and moral sense.

sources:

[1] http://www.pewresearch.org...
[2] https://www.hta.gov.uk...
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[4] http://www.americantransplantfoundation.org...
[5] https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk...
paintballvet18

Con

My opponent argues a few points in Round 2 that I will refute:

1. Thank you for agreeing not to debate the other terms.

2. I show in Round 1 how it is not morally correct to kill anyone in the action of "murder". Therefore, Pro's point is faulty.

3. Atomic Bomb argument has nothing to do with "murder" as defined in Round 1. We can drop this argument.

4. The fact that Pro first says all lives valuable then says the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few means that he is contradicting himself. The Pro is for murder. So which is it? All lives or most lives?

5. The Donor argument disgusts me. He is essentially saying that murder is "okay" if the person is on a donor registration list. This essentially means that the Pro is advocating for killing people in the action of "murder" so we can harvest their organs. Absolutely not. He even says, "The fact that most people want to save lives through dying, proven by the fact they signed the organ register, makes their death and the act of murdering them acceptable." Are you kidding me!?! Of course not. That's horrifying to even think of, much less bring up. The Pro's logic to come up to this conclusion is flawed. If people were asked the question, "Would you like to be murdered to donate your organs?," would the consent rate be as high as the Pro says?

Looking at the Con case, extend all arguments as nothing is refuted in Round 2.

You, as a judge, simply can not vote Pro for two reasons: 1. His false logic that is horrifying on a moral standpoint, and 2. The drops of all refutations in Round 2 against the Con case.
Debate Round No. 2
mostlogical

Pro

2. Lets examine Con's arguement in round 1, if you say "I murdered someone" and are given 25 years in prison, it doesn't mean it is not okay to murder, it just means it's illegal, anything can be made illegal, it doesn't require a majority vote, smoking is legal despite it killing you, is that acceptable? There is a reason behind every law, and murder just happens to be based on outdated reasoning. Laws need to be changed and do quite a lot.

Con says murder deprives someone of their life. What about the other lives who are awaiting a transplant, and their loved ones? Aren't they important too? It is selfish to allow more people to die and to allow more people to suffer. I've proven that there are more life-years that could be saved through murder, more lives saved etc, yet this point is simply ignored.

Just because someone says you have a right to life doesn't mean it's not okay to murder, a fetus can have a right to life, but is abortion okay?

3. The point I made about atomic bombs is that the majority of people believe that the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few and still holds.

4. All life is valuable, so we should do whatever saves most lives, no matter how cruel it may be e.g. if you have 9 dogs and 8 of them need an organ immediately, one of the dogs should be killed so the other 8 can live. This applies with humans too. It is the right thing to do. There are animals who kill their own babies if they have defects, murder is a natural thing.

5. Con says that murder is disgusting, this is perhaps his weakest arguement, some people say that homosexuals are disgusting, but does it mean it is not okay to find the same sex attractive? Should we make it a crime to be gay? No, so why should we make murder illegal, and think it is wrong, just because you find it disgusting?

Nobody would sign the NHS organ register if they knew the truth about how it devalues life. Consent rate is high because the majority of people believe the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few, therefore if people were murdered and their organs were harvested I don't think they would mind. I think most people would want to live, the dog in my example would want to live, but should it if that means more life will die and suffer? My answer to that is no!

I look forward to your response

Thanks for accepting this debate. Vote Pro.
paintballvet18

Con

My opponent says that "laws needed to be changed and do quite a lot". He doesn't explain why murder should be legalized.

Of course people that need organs are important, but THAT ISN'T A GOOD IDEA TO LEGALIZE MURDER. My opponent fails to provide a reason, therefore you must vote Con.

He brings up abortion but promised in the previous rounds not to mention it, so we can drop that attack.

Point 4 has been refuted, therefore can also be dropped.

Point 5 is sooooo easy to refute. It's simple enough to show that homosexuality has (1) nothing to do with this debate, and (2) is not comparable to murder. Done. Drop that argument too.

Therefore,

Vote Con.

A vote for Pro means people can kill without punishment, remorse or second thought. My opponent has not showed how or why this is acceptable, therefore you must, MUST, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: madness// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a strong argument built around the idea that "the lives of the many out way the few" this was ignored by Con, because Cons response to this is 'However, these two questions have literally nothing to do with the question at hand for the debate, "Is Murder Okay?".' Thus Con failed to refute the most important question here. "In general, societies consider "murder" to be "wrong" because it is depriving someone of the one thing that nearly every human being holds sacred - their life. Since in the United States, we have the unalienable right to life, murder is therefore also not legally acceptable, and therefore receives the maximum punishment" This point simply states that people have the right to live, it doesn't explain why, no logic, no reasoning. Just a claim. gets points for sources, as they all backed his claims, Con had one source that was just a forum where people posted opinions.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess points made by both debaters. That requires more than just stating than an argument made by Pro was unrefuted " the voter is required to assess the strength of the point itself. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than simply state that one side backed their claims with sources. It must be clear what claims those sources supported.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: madness// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a strong argument built around the idea that "the lives of the many out way the few" this was ignored by Con, because Cons response to this is 'However, these two questions have literally nothing to do with the question at hand for the debate, "Is Murder Okay?".' Thus Con failed to refute the most important question here. Pro gets points for sources, as they all backed his claims, Con had one source that was just a forum where people posted opinions. Con resorts to pleaing with voters-"A vote for Pro means people can kill without punishment, remorse or second thought. My opponent has not showed how or why this is acceptable, therefore you must, MUST, vote Con." This is poor conduct, as it shows a lack of professionalism and is begging, so I must give away points.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to show that one of the debaters was insulting, forfeited a round, or violated the rules. Merely showing what the voter deems to be "a lack of professionalism and" begging" is not sufficient. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess points made by both debaters. That requires more than just stating than an argument made by Pro was unrefuted, and more than pointing out that Con"s rebuttals and pleas to voters were insufficient. The strength of each side"s arguments must be assessed to some degree.
************************************************************************
Posted by paintballvet18 1 year ago
paintballvet18
Looks like my opponent has given up.
No votes have been placed for this debate.